"We were served a summons for Dank to appear and produce documents shortly before Christmas in 2013," Stanton said.

"He produced no documents because he had none and declared that by the way of a statutory declaration.''

Mr Stanton explained ASADA issued a summons requiring his attendance on the public holiday of January 27.

ASADA is not making it very clear at this point in time, the basis on which they released him of his obligation to answer the summons.

Barrister Gregory Stanton

The date was moved to the next business day but in the course of negotiations between ASADA and Dank's lawyers ASADA said Dank would not be required to attend if he was not going to answer their questions fully and co-operatively.

"And regardless of whether he answered or didn't answer, he attended or didn't attend, he would be breached by way of an infraction for alleged breaches of the act," Mr Stanton said.

ASADA never issued a notice for breach.

"ASADA is not making it very clear at this point in time the basis on which they released him of his obligation to answer the summons," Mr Stanton added.

"Because in the past they made it very clear that regardless of what he did or did not do, it was their intention to infract him for alleged breaches."

This week's show-cause notice follows the addition last month of retired Federal Court judge Garry Downes to the ASADA investigation.

Dank not compelled to respond

Mr Stanton said the show-cause notice does not say what Dank is alleged to have done and there is no compulsion on him to respond to the notice.

"In its terms it asserts that there is a basis which they claim they have in terms of in the illegal and irregular dealing of certain substances, in terms of trafficking, supplying and administering, aiding and abetting, procuring and counselling and the like," he said.

"It contains a mishmash of tenuous and half-baked propositions and requires Dank to respond accordingly."

The notice refers to certain substances but does not contain specifics on what Dank is alleged to have done with them.

Mr Stanton said in effect the notice is asking Dank to respond by saying what he knows, if anything, about these situations.

Dank's legal team has 10 days to respond if they choose to.

Mr Stanton said he and his instructing solicitor are looking at whether ASADA has any jurisdiction over Dank.

There is no compulsion for Dank to respond, but when the response time is expired ASADA may refer the matter to an anti-doping sports violation tribunal.

If the tribunal finds he has a case to answer, Dank's name will go on The Register of Findings.

Dank can appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. ASADA could counter-appeal in the Federal Court.

Once that process is exhausted ASADA would go to the relevant sport, in this the case the AFL, and suggest that they issue Dank with an infraction notice.